Making New Aesthetic theory slightly more concrete


14 Responses to “Making New Aesthetic theory slightly more concrete”

  1. I’m trying, but I really can’t shake the feeling that this Emperor doesn’t even have skin.

    • rrh says:

      Who is the Emperor in your analogy? And what are the clothes? And what is the skin? I’ll presume you think you are the little boy.

      • I’m not sure if your questions are in earnest, or addressed in a spirit parodic of the rather circuitous nature of much NA discussion.  If in earnest: the Emperor’s New Clothes analogy is usually employed where  some novel cultural or artistic phenomenon is being widely touted as possessing considerable brilliance and substance; the Emperor is the new cultural or artistic phenomenon; the clothes are the purported brilliance and substance, of which, if the analogy holds, there is none; the skin being merely an fanciful addition to the initial analogy to suggest the greater lack thereof; it is not necessary for the user of the analogy to take on or personify any specific character in the tale, the whole phenomenon being a means of expressing an opinion by means of a linguistic borrowing, rather than an attempt to literally re-enact the whole of the yarn.

        • rrh says:

          I know the story. The Sterling article puts forward that the “perpetual novelty” viewpoint is stunting the development of generative art.

          So are you saying, “Silly Sterling, generative art is inherently stunted because it isn’t real art,” or are you saying, “That’s right, Sterling, the fixation on perpetual novelty is stopping us from seeing clearly.”

          • Neither.  I was expressing a knee-jerk and doubtless unfounded opposition to the whole gamut of the New Aesthetic.  I haven’t been able to make it all the way through any of the articles yet – I guess my comment might have been better phrased: I trying to get to grips with this, and haven’t c0me to any firm conclusions, but dammit thus far my spidey sense for pretentious horseshit is going hog-wild.

          • rrh says:

            Oh, okay. I had only read Sterling’s last response. Now that I read the other two, I might have put too much emphasis on the generative art.

  2. hellishmundane says:

    oooh this is the first time ive heard of  “new aesthetic”  and i think its freaking adorable i just wanna hug the hell out of it. infact i think im gonna try to go make some “new aesthetic” right now and see if i cant get some one to buy it.

  3. rrh (can’t reply directly to your last comment) – fair enough, dude, apologies for any snark in the tone my replies!

    • rrh says:

      I can certainly see how “Oh, you can’t interpret this new art using that old aesthetic, you need this new aesthetic” would some across like an attempt to hoodwink you. (Maybe like the green glasses for the emerald city.)

      But I also have a kneejerk reaction to accusations of pretension. Is there a reverse fable? “The Country of the Blind,” maybe?

      • Yes, indeed, it may be that Sterling is attempting to enlighten those of us who dwell in the dank cave as to the true nature of those objects whose mere flickering shadows we have taken for all the world, and the New Aesthetic may well be a kind of three-dimensional object moving through the Flatland of my brain…..but I’m all fabled-out at this juncture!

  4. timquinn says:

    I read, hear “New Aesthetic” and I think old, tired, pretentious, ugly, unconscious, elitist, not at all new or aesthetic, did I say pretentious? If you tell me that is the point, I will respond, “I don’t give a fuck what you meant to say.” Call me cynical . . . or experienced.

  5. I find cory’s insinuation that as an audience we didn’t ‘get’ it before slightly patronising.

    We got it, it was just a boat load of hot air.

  6. eviladrian says:

    Complaining that modern art is pretentious is like complaining that modern cakes are fattening…

Leave a Reply